Draft or NO Draft?

[drowe]

How about offering citizenship for 8 years of service (including IRR). Or do we already do that? If so, we could reduce it to 4 years. With all the illegals, it should be very easy to increase enlistment numbers.

Then again, it reminds me of a Colombian guy who was in my platoon during Basic; he was canned for being unable to understand our Drill Sergeant. Even though it was extremely funny watching the Drill Sergeant freak out on him for doing the total opposite of what the Drill Sergeant was telling him; we don’t need an influx of people creating that sort of problem on a large scale.

 

[wolvie20m]

Are you insane? You want to lower standards? Fifty percent of the board beefs about how weak we are and you wanna lower standards? Better to have 100 professionals than 200 amatuers. You can overwhelm the enemy with substandard troops, but the cost will be high. Look at how America is bugging out over 1400 or so dead in over two years. Imagine that number tripling because you lowered the bar and gave them a pass and a trip overseas. I aint making that casualty call, sorry.

Top

If you know anything about the military, you know they have a test called the asvab which tests the knowledge of the recruit. So when a recruit that tests good on the asvab but only has a GED isn't allowed, but a kid who has graduated HS but tests low, what then? Well they do base it on the kid, for instance if I only have a GED, but I test real high on the asvab. So I get in. The kid with the HS grad doesn't cause he tests low. So when they say lowering standards it's not on knowledge all around it's on HS education. They have 3 categories.
Tear 1-HS Grad
Tear 3-GED
Tear 3-completed the 10th grade(rarely accepted, but does happen)

So lowering standards isn't bad. Now if they were to lower asvab test scores would be bad. By the way that’s why the Marines are the best they mostly only recruit people they would serve with.

P.S. Not saying you don't know anything just filling you in on what I know.

 

[007]

Here is the deal. If you don't desire with all your heart and soul to break things and kill people, I don't need you in my Corps. I concur with CSM totally on this. A leader spends 90% of his time with the bottom 10% of his people. That is a sorry stat, but true. If we have a draft or national service or whatever, that 10% will jump to well over 50% I'd wager. That means that the good Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine will not get the training or attention they deserve. And then to add to it, the draftee that doesn't want to be there will endanger my daughter (who does) and I will have to go back on active duty to put a boot up his ass.

The Corps would have to remain volunteer only, just as the Air Force would. You gotta have guts to be a Marine, and you gotta be good at technical shit to be a Zoomie. I know. I spent eight years in the Air Force working on fighter jets.

But the Army and the Navy have plenty to do for fuck ups. They could keep a "reformed fat boy gangbanger" busy in supply for a couple of years easy, and the training for that wouldn't take any time at all. But, if you're just plain dumber than a sack of dirt, the military simply would HAVE to draw the line somewhere, and if I was that fucking dumb/fat/ignorant/warrants out for my arrest, I sure the hell wouldn't be proud of it, and go around bragging about how I beat the military. You'd have beaten yourself.

I still think a 2 year mandatory hitch would be a good thing, if it was properly applied.

 

[wolvie20m]

The Corps would have to remain volunteer only, just as the Air Force would. You gotta have guts to be a Marine, and you gotta be good at technical shit to be a Zoomie. I know. I spent eight years in the Air Force working on fighter jets.

But the Army and the Navy have plenty to do for fuck ups. They could keep a "reformed fat boy gangbanger" busy in supply for a couple of years easy, and the training for that wouldn't take any time at all. But, if you're just plain dumber than a sack of dirt, the military simply would HAVE to draw the line somewhere, and if I was that fucking dumb/fat/ignorant, I sure the hell wouldn't be proud of it, and go around bragging about how I beat the military. You'd have beaten yourself.

I still think a 2 year mandatory hitch would be a good thing, if it was properly applied.

Nicely put!!

 

[007]

What about me? I want to be a Marine.

You want to be a Marine? Then I sincerely hope someday you are. Good luck.

 

[wolvie20m]

It's no longer a matter a hope, just time...Wanting infantry 0311. Might need some luck for Dress blues though.

Another thing AIDS/HIV wasn't around when the last draft. How would you go about forcing them to get blood drawn? Up at MEPS(Military Entrance Processing Station) they give you all kind of tests, it would be easy to get out of a draft. You have to get every medical record for broken bones and allot of other things.

 

[pegwinn]

Depends on which standards one is talking about. There are a lot of really good potential soldiers that can't get into the military because either 1) they dropped out of high-school cuz they were poor and went to work to help support the family or 2) they did something wrong, from which they learned and now they can't get in.

They need to evaluate each potential recruit based on abilities and potential and rely less on generic rules of admission.

No offence F&F but there is a couple of excellent reasons we got rid of cat fours. 1st is that your high ASVAB + no diploma is the exception to the rule about natural ability. Second is self discipline. If you finish high school you have demonstrated a very limited amount of self discipline. A GED demonstrated that they are willing and able to overcome failure. Lowering standards is nothing more than welfare for the unworthy. If someone wishes to join, they have to measure up.

How about offering citizenship for 8 years of service (including IRR). Or do we already do that? If so, we could reduce it to 4 years. With all the illegals, it should be very easy to increase enlistment numbers.

Then again, it reminds me of a Colombian guy who was in my platoon during Basic; he was canned for being unable to understand our Drill Sergeant. Even though it was extremely funny watching the Drill Sergeant freak out on him for doing the total opposite of what the Drill Sergeant was telling him; we don’t need an influx of people creating that sort of problem on a large scale.

There is currently an accelerated path for those seeking citizenship. Two of my Marines were sworn in aboard the USS Constitution in San Diego. I got to hang out as a "guest". I don't concur with illegals. We no longer allow criminals in my Corps. An illegal is by definition a criminal and one whos loyalties are suspect to boot.

If you know anything about the military, you know they have a test called the asvab which tests the knowledge of the recruit. So when a recruit that tests good on the asvab but only has a GED isn't allowed, but a kid who has graduated HS but tests low, what then? Well they do base it on the kid, for instance if I only have a GED, but I test real high on the asvab. So I get in. The kid with the HS grad doesn't cause he tests low. So when they say lowering standards it's not on knowledge all around it's on HS education. They have 3 categories.
Tear 1-HS Grad
Tear 3-GED
Tear 3-completed the 10th grade(rarely accepted, but does happen)

So lowering standards isn't bad. Now if they were to lower asvab test scores would be bad. By the way that’s why the Marines are the best they mostly only recruit people they would serve with.

P.S. Not saying you don't know anything just filling you in on what I know.

Am real glad you are willing to allow as to how I might know something. :rotflmao:

You are not talking about lowering standards. You are describing the catagories of enlistees. If and when you complete recruit training, you will have joined a very exclusive fraternity if you will. You will not want the standards lowered as it would cheapen your own admission. If that didn't make sense today, it will, at the completion of your crucible.

Best of Luck
Top

 

[wolvie20m]

Not for me but a friend of mine with a GED wants to join, he couldn't go in with me on the buddy program. Sucks.

 

[CSM]

You have to take the good with the bad in everything you do in life. The same would be true for the military, and I dare say, the military is very well equiped to deal with problem punks and fat boys. What you should think about is how many of these people that would be straightened out, and may find that the military makes a good home for them, and they end up life'ing it and being outstanding soilders.

That's what I should think about eh?

I have had to train some of these draftees and it is not a pretty picture. A good number of them ended up getting less than honorable discharges and some even ended up with federal convictions. Some that do make it through end up being a detriment to morale and discipline in their units. True some do turn out to be fine soldiers. For the most part, the Army in particular does not have the time to straighten out Momma's problem child. Time spent trying get lil Johnny to straighten up and fly right is time that could have been spent on good soldiers who really want to be there. I dont know what the exact numbers are, but few draftees make a career of the military.

Straighten the punks out first, then send them to the military.

 

[CSM]

The Corps would have to remain volunteer only, just as the Air Force would. You gotta have guts to be a Marine, and you gotta be good at technical shit to be a Zoomie. I know. I spent eight years in the Air Force working on fighter jets.

But the Army and the Navy have plenty to do for fuck ups. They could keep a "reformed fat boy gangbanger" busy in supply for a couple of years easy, and the training for that wouldn't take any time at all. But, if you're just plain dumber than a sack of dirt, the military simply would HAVE to draw the line somewhere, and if I was that fucking dumb/fat/ignorant/warrants out for my arrest, I sure the hell wouldn't be proud of it, and go around bragging about how I beat the military. You'd have beaten yourself.

I still think a 2 year mandatory hitch would be a good thing, if it was properly applied.

I cannot express how difficult it is to deal with some of these people. I remember well when the Army was saddled with the equivalent of the "reformed fat boy gangbanger". The Army was one sorry mess, let me tell you.

Top, aka Pegwinn, is exactly right; time spent with the lowlifes is time taken away from those who deserve and NEED the training.

As for the different services, while there is a lot of joking between members of the services, they each have their role to play in any conflict. There are many Army folks (including myself) that have as much "guts" as any Marine, and are as technically competent as any Airman. I suspect the same is true of Navy personnel. All the services have their dangerous jobs and dangerous times, they all have their technical skills requirements, and they all have their less than glorious jobs. That does not mean the less than glorious jobs are less important. In fact, many times the less than glorious jobs are MORE important.

The bottom line is that if someone does not want to be part of the team, they can be such a disruptive influence that the team suffers, therefore they should not be there.

 

[Shattered]

We could always give Pale his own soldiers, and let him go... No sense troubling others that want to be there with picking up slack for those that don't want to be there...

Honestly, Pale.. Would you *really* want someone responsible for covering your ass, and protecting your back that doesn't want to be there in the first place? What incentive do they have? Living? Pfft. Hell, if dying gets them out...

I think we have more than enough people that *do* want to be there; we don't *need* a draft, and by no means should military enrollment be mandatory.

The only good soldiers I know, are ones that went willingly, and with both eyes open.

 

[NATO AIR]

I hate to say it, but the truth is even without a draft, that bottom 10% is a hell of a drain on the military as it is. They make everybody's job harder, they make operations and evolutions more complicated and messy and they are a killer on morale.

All due respect to Pegwinn, but there's too many fuck-ups in the corps as it is (i've had to deal with some of them, though ya have to admire the various ways marine leaders have to deal with those folks), and lord knows way too many in the navy and army.

That's why you take the best (and the normal who are willing to bust their ass in the military) of the draftees and put the rest in civil service projects (like rebuilding communities, schools, etc etc) and other areas.

I'm not a great sailor, but I do show up for my watches on time, I do take care of people under me (and fervently fight for them btw), I follow orders and I don't screw over people. That's 80% of the Navy, the other 20%, they make a fucking mess. And that 20% has no problems related to stupidity or inability, its damn near always laziness, dishonesty and being selfish.

 

[CSM]

Pale, by his own admission, is a wing nut (my endearing term for Air Force people). I know first hand (have lived and worked on many Air Force bases) that most wingnuts work in an environment very much like a corporation. Unlike gravel crunchers (endearing term for Army folks) and jarhead (marines) or even swabbies, the Air Force (of all the services) have the "cushiest" jobs. They live indoors for the most part with four solid walls, have heat, electricity, and running water most of the time. Most airmen I know are horrified at the thought that they may have to live in a tent or use a porta potty!

Seriously though, if we use the premise that the military will straighten people out, could we not say the same about police academies or firefighter training? Maybe we could make those two types of organizations take draftees.

 

[wolvie20m]

I'd have to say I'm in the middle of this argument. I agree with pale on if it was properly applied it could free up men that want to be there. Yet if they were to put someone in the field who doesn't want to be there could endanger the men he serves with. As well with any service I respect you and what you do. Nato though you don't seem to have the pride the Marines do (and some Army folks), it's pretty simple to add a capital N, M, and A at the beginning. I know when if I were to spell Marines, marines my recruiter and the Marines would put their foot in my a**. It would be hard for them to accept someone who doesn't do their job with pride.

I mean no disrespect to the Army, Navy, Air Force men and women.

 

[freeandfun1]

I'd have to say I'm in the middle of this argument. I agree with pale on if it was properly applied it could free up men that want to be there. Yet if they were to put someone in the field who doesn't want to be there could endanger the men he serves with. As well with any service I respect you and what you do. Nato though you don't seem to have the pride the Marines do (and some Army folks), it's pretty simple to add a capital N, M, and A at the beginning. I know when if I were to spell Marines, marines my recruiter and the Marines would put their foot in my a**. It would be hard for them to accept someone who doesn't do their job with pride.

I mean no disrespect to the Army, Navy, Air Force men and women.

Frankly, the Marines crack me up with their attitude that only the Marines have pride or are worthy of pride.

I believe as with any service, it all depends on your job as to how much pride one has or does not have about serving. When I was in the Army, combat arms units seemed to have the most pride but that is all part of how they motivate you to kill. They instill esperit d'corp and unit pride in an effort to keep you motivated to do your job the best. In the Navy and AF, it seems to be the pilots and the SF units that have the most pride, but then again, I can't truly comment on them since I have never served in either.

Anyway, my point is that I assure you, there are many in the Army that are just as proud of serving or having served in the Army just as there are Marines that are proud of serving or having served in the Marines.

 

[pegwinn]

Frankly, the Marines crack me up with their attitude that only the Marines have pride or are worthy of pride.

F&F. Frankly, the other services crack me up with their attitude that .......

Seriously. I had the privelege of serving a couple of joint tours where I lived and worked with the Army and the AirForce. Been on ship a few times both in troop berthing and the Chiefs mess as well. No one has a monopoly on pride. I do honestly believe that Jarheads are far more likely to grab the world by the balls and pull start it like a lawn boy lawn mower...... The key word in your post was attitude and that can be positive or negative.

As a very young PFC a Corporal once told me that you are in the Army/Navy/AirForce. But you Are a Marine. I honestly found the "in" attitude more often in the more technical sides of the services. The closer to the point of the bayonett, the more ARE attitude.

Top

 

[freeandfun1]

F&F. Frankly, the other services crack me up with their attitude that .......

Seriously. I had the privelege of serving a couple of joint tours where I lived and worked with the Army and the AirForce. Been on ship a few times both in troop berthing and the Chiefs mess as well. No one has a monopoly on pride. I do honestly believe that Jarheads are far more likely to grab the world by the balls and pull start it like a lawn boy lawn mower...... The key word in your post was attitude and that can be positive or negative.

As a very young PFC a Corporal once told me that you are in the Army/Navy/AirForce. But you Are a Marine. I honestly found the "in" attitude more often in the more technical sides of the services. The closer to the point of the bayonett, the more ARE attitude.

Top

Here is my point. For all intents and purposes, the Marines are the "Infantry" of the Navy. I was in the Army but I AM an infantryman. I would put an Army infantryman up against a Marine any day. That is why I said that even in the Army, the pride is more obvious within the Combat Arms units. I wore my blue Infantryman's Cord and Blue Insignia Discs with great pride. My point is that Army Infantrymen have a lot of pride - just as much as you jarheads.

 

[007]

Pale, by his own admission, is a wing nut (my endearing term for Air Force people). I know first hand (have lived and worked on many Air Force bases) that most wingnuts work in an environment very much like a corporation. Unlike gravel crunchers (endearing term for Army folks) and jarhead (marines) or even swabbies, the Air Force (of all the services) have the "cushiest" jobs. They live indoors for the most part with four solid walls, have heat, electricity, and running water most of the time. Most airmen I know are horrified at the thought that they may have to live in a tent or use a porta potty!

Seriously though, if we use the premise that the military will straighten people out, could we not say the same about police academies or firefighter training? Maybe we could make those two types of organizations take draftees.

You crack me up CSM. I had an endearing laugh, and I can't say as you're all wrong about the A-F. Much of my job through the eight years I spent in the Force, was pretty much like going to any other job, including civilian... until they mobilized us, the 474th Tactical Fighter Wing, to drag our bags to Lebanon after terrorsits blew up that Marine barracks. That little expedition taught me to respect and value my Marine Corp friends, because while I was (trying) to sleep, they were out on the base perimeter getting shot at all night. So I didn't mean anything bad towards any branch of the military, including the Coast Gaurd. I like and admire them all. We're brother's in arms, and brother's as veterans.

You all make good points about having troubled punks pushed into an otherwise happily staffed and productive branch of the military. I can't say as though I think these little disruptive turds would be good for any branch, or anywhere else for that matter. So what I suggest then is, a new branch of military "just for them". One that could weed out the good from the bad, and it would then supplement all the other branches and their missions.

Just an idea.

 

[wolvie20m]

I wonder what we would call that Branch Pale?

 

[CSM]

I wonder what we would call that Branch Pale?

Back in the "old days", and by that I mean in the late 60's, there was a draft and there were those trainees that just couldn't or wouldn't do what they were supposed to. A normal training battalion had four companies of four platoons each (composed of four squads). Each battalion had a fifth platoon called the "goon platoon" composed of the aforementioned individuals. I propose we call the branch you mentioned the GOONS:

G = General
O = Office
O = Organizing
NS = Non-Selectees

Said branch would be responsible for finding useful work in support of the military such as painting rocks, mowing lawns, picking up trash and cleaning latrines.